These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Comparison of measurement variability in subjects with moderate periodontitis using a conventional and constant force periodontal probe. Osborn JB; Stoltenberg JL; Huso BA; Aeppli DM; Pihlstrom BL J Periodontol; 1992 Apr; 63(4):283-9. PubMed ID: 1573541 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of measurement variability using a standard and constant force periodontal probe. Osborn J; Stoltenberg J; Huso B; Aeppli D; Pihlstrom B J Periodontol; 1990 Aug; 61(8):497-503. PubMed ID: 2391627 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy and reproducibility of two manual periodontal probes. An in vitro study. Buduneli E; Aksoy O; Köse T; Atilla G J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Oct; 31(10):815-9. PubMed ID: 15367182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The use of periodontal probes and radiographs in clinical trials of diagnostic tests. Reddy MS Ann Periodontol; 1997 Mar; 2(1):113-22. PubMed ID: 9151548 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a CEJ probe versus traditional probes. Karpinia K; Magnusson I; Gibbs C; Yang MC J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):173-6. PubMed ID: 15016020 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Site-specific attachment level change detected by physical probing in untreated chronic adult periodontitis: review of studies 1982-1997. Breen HJ; Johnson NW; Rogers PA J Periodontol; 1999 Mar; 70(3):312-28. PubMed ID: 10225549 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of manual probing depth. Andrade R; Espinoza M; Gómez EM; Espinoza JR; Cruz E Braz Oral Res; 2012; 26(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 22344339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reliability of attachment level measurements using the cementoenamel junction and a plastic stent. Clark DC; Chin Quee T; Bergeron MJ; Chan EC; Lautar-Lemay C; de Gruchy K J Periodontol; 1987 Feb; 58(2):115-8. PubMed ID: 3469400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A periodontal probe with automated cemento--enamel junction detection-design and clinical trials. Jeffcoat MK; Jeffcoat RL; Captain K IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1991 Apr; 38(4):330-3. PubMed ID: 1855793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Manual and electronic probing of the periodontal attachment level in untreated periodontitis: a systematic review. Silva-Boghossian CM; Amaral CS; Maia LC; Luiz RR; Colombo AP J Dent; 2008 Aug; 36(8):651-7. PubMed ID: 18534736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reproducibility of attachment level measurements with two models of the Florida Probe. Marks RG; Low SB; Taylor M; Baggs R; Magnusson I; Clark WB J Clin Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 18(10):780-4. PubMed ID: 1753003 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Measuring clinical attachment: reproducibility of relative measurements with an electronic probe. Clark WB; Yang MC; Magnusson I J Periodontol; 1992 Oct; 63(10):831-8. PubMed ID: 1403590 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical evaluation of electronic and manual constant force probes. Khocht A; Chang KM J Periodontol; 1998 Jan; 69(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 9527557 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of manual and controlled-force attachment-level measurements. Reddy MS; Palcanis KG; Geurs NC J Clin Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 24(12):920-6. PubMed ID: 9442430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The rate of periodontal attachment loss in subjects with established periodontitis. Machtei EE; Norderyd J; Koch G; Dunford R; Grossi S; Genco RJ J Periodontol; 1993 Aug; 64(8):713-8. PubMed ID: 8410609 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]